Comments on: Environmental groups dispute about nanotechnologyhttp://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2461
examining transformative technologyMon, 02 May 2016 14:06:02 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4By: Kungfubloodhttp://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2461#comment-214459
KungfubloodThu, 19 Apr 2007 17:16:45 +0000http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2461#comment-214459It can only be hoped that the voluntary guidelines such as those that have been in place in Mr. Cheny's office will be the first step to useful regulations. Of course the resultant deaths and disfigurement as a result of the lack of oversight is a necessary component of the self regulation policy.It can only be hoped that the voluntary guidelines such as those that have been in place in Mr. Cheny’s office will be the first step to useful regulations. Of course the resultant deaths and disfigurement as a result of the lack of oversight is a necessary component of the self regulation policy.
]]>By: Christine Petersonhttp://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2461#comment-212819
Christine PetersonMon, 16 Apr 2007 23:13:29 +0000http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2461#comment-212819Thanks for the clarification and corrections, Hope.
But let's look at a key issue: Are voluntary guidelines often/sometimes the first step to useful regulations, or not?
This is an important point, I think. Have you seen any studies on this? I haven't looked into this, but I would guess that voluntary guidelines might often lead to actual regulations. Any data available? Thanks. —ChristineThanks for the clarification and corrections, Hope.

But let’s look at a key issue: Are voluntary guidelines often/sometimes the first step to useful regulations, or not?

This is an important point, I think. Have you seen any studies on this? I haven’t looked into this, but I would guess that voluntary guidelines might often lead to actual regulations. Any data available? Thanks. —Christine

]]>By: Hope Shandhttp://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2461#comment-212686
Hope ShandMon, 16 Apr 2007 17:17:52 +0000http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2461#comment-212686I'm glad that you picked up on the open letter from civil society and labor organizations, rejecting the proposed ED/Dupont Nano Risk Framework. However, it isn't correct to imply that ETC Group is somehow the ringleader on this effort. Did you notice that the open letter was signed by lots of organizations from all over the world? Including the AFL/CIO, Natural Resources Defense Council, Third World Network, International Union of Food and Agricultural Workers, Center for Technology Assessment and many more. All of these groups were asked to distribute the open letter in their networks. ETC Group was just one of them - and we were pleased to be among this broad coalition of groups that have publicly rejected a voluntary risk framework for nanotech. The letter does not "ridicule" ED/Dupont's work, but it strongly rejects a voluntary framework as the starting point for nanotechnology policy, oversight and risk analysis. Speaking for ETC Group, we have already made a proposal -- and that is for a moratorium on the commercialization of new products containing novel, engineered nanoparticles until lab protocols are put in place to protect workers, and until regulations are in place to protect consumers and the environment. Given that so much is unknown and uncertain surrounding the health and safety of engineered nanoparticles, and in the absence of larger societal debate - we believe those regulations must be mandatory, and based on the Precautionary Principle and they must go beyond a discussion of health and safety to include broader societal issues.I’m glad that you picked up on the open letter from civil society and labor organizations, rejecting the proposed ED/Dupont Nano Risk Framework. However, it isn’t correct to imply that ETC Group is somehow the ringleader on this effort. Did you notice that the open letter was signed by lots of organizations from all over the world? Including the AFL/CIO, Natural Resources Defense Council, Third World Network, International Union of Food and Agricultural Workers, Center for Technology Assessment and many more. All of these groups were asked to distribute the open letter in their networks. ETC Group was just one of them – and we were pleased to be among this broad coalition of groups that have publicly rejected a voluntary risk framework for nanotech. The letter does not “ridicule” ED/Dupont’s work, but it strongly rejects a voluntary framework as the starting point for nanotechnology policy, oversight and risk analysis. Speaking for ETC Group, we have already made a proposal — and that is for a moratorium on the commercialization of new products containing novel, engineered nanoparticles until lab protocols are put in place to protect workers, and until regulations are in place to protect consumers and the environment. Given that so much is unknown and uncertain surrounding the health and safety of engineered nanoparticles, and in the absence of larger societal debate – we believe those regulations must be mandatory, and based on the Precautionary Principle and they must go beyond a discussion of health and safety to include broader societal issues.
]]>